General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running watches? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2010-02-04 5:33 AM

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: Running watches?
Looking for a little advice/education here. I would like to get a running watch that can track my pace. I don't necessarily feel like I need GPS if a foot pod will do the trick. My question is about the accuracy of using a foot pod. Isn't stride length somewhat different for runs done at different paces? If so, wouldn't that throw off the accuracy of pace/distance measurements as your pace varies?



2010-02-04 7:03 AM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Running watches?

I do not own a foot pod, but I have seen mixed reviews.  Some people seem to be OK with them, others seem to have significant variance.

What are you trying to accomplish?  What are your requirements in regards to pacing?  Do you want to see current pace, average pace over the entire run, lap pace?

2010-02-04 7:26 AM
in reply to: #2654036

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Scout7 - 2010-02-04 8:03 AM

I do not own a foot pod, but I have seen mixed reviews.  Some people seem to be OK with them, others seem to have significant variance.

What are you trying to accomplish?  What are your requirements in regards to pacing?  Do you want to see current pace, average pace over the entire run, lap pace?



Average pace would be fine for steady-state kinds of runs, but the primary need would be current pace in order to try and hit and maintain target paces for specific workouts (tempo, intervals, etc.) - so lap function would be useful, too....
2010-02-04 7:42 AM
in reply to: #2654079

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Running watches?

Ah.

Then you might have difficulty with the foot pod.  No, that's not based on direct scientific knowledge, but on reviews I've seen of other people.

If you really want to go that route, I'd spring for the GPS.  No need to worry about calibrating it.  Depends on how accurate you want to be, though.

Or you could do most of it over a measured course (like a track for interval work), and do the rest by feel.

2010-02-04 8:56 AM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Running watches?
hmmm... I've just been doing some reading and I seem to see the opposite conclusion - that a footpod is better for current/instantaneous pace than GPS because there is a bit of a lag in the GPS data (so GPS shows your your pace from a few seconds ago, not your pace right now). Anyone with experience using either footpod, GPS, or both care to chime in?
2010-02-04 9:06 AM
in reply to: #2654310

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Running watches?

I did use GPS, and yes, the current pace is highly variable and not really useful.  I always went with lap pace, which for me was usually set to autolap every mile.  That setting proved to be much more useful.  Knowing my pace at this specific second was really distracting and didn't prove to be helpful in terms of actual pacing.

I think current pace is highly suspect, no matter what device.  I think lap pace is going to be much more helpful and smoother, even for intervals. 

Again, my opinion, based on my specific experiences and research.



2010-02-04 9:21 AM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Veteran
300
100100100
Colfax, NC
Subject: RE: Running watches?
I'll second what Scout said about instantaneous pace versus lap pace.  Lap pace is what I use as well.  I can't think of anytime that I ever really needed to know what pace I was at at that very second.  On most runs I would say I hold a pretty steady pace so the lap pace tells me what I need to know.  I would say go for a GPS but then I love data!  I like to review my runs in Sport Tracks in regards to pacing throughout the run.
2010-02-04 11:12 AM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Man.... you guys aren't helping me, here! The cheap-skate in me is trying hard to convince myself that I can make due with one of the cheaper options! I'm pretty sure I could find a forerunner 50 w/foot pod for < $100, or maybe even go for one of these....
2010-02-04 1:08 PM
in reply to: #2653976

TX
Subject: RE: Running watches?
An option you may consider is the Nike Plus Sport Band.

Personally, I have not tried it out, though I know people who have. Even if you don't train in Nike+ shoes, you can get a "pouch" for the Nike+ sensor on your shoe (and the sensor is smaller than the foot pods you are talking about), that sends the info to the Sports Band.


You other option is going to a local track and run 400m, 800m and mile repeats until you have memorized pace

Good luck!
2010-02-04 1:13 PM
in reply to: #2654772

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Running watches?

jsnowash - 2010-02-04 12:12 PM Man.... you guys aren't helping me, here! The cheap-skate in me is trying hard to convince myself that I can make due with one of the cheaper options! I'm pretty sure I could find a forerunner 50 w/foot pod for < $100, or maybe even go for one of these....

You wanna be cheap, buy yourself a simple Timex watch.  Problem solved.  You can train very effectively without a foot pod or GPS.

2010-02-04 1:21 PM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Expert
696
500100252525
Sugar Hill, GA
Subject: RE: Running watches?
I'll try to help you out.  I've got a polar HRM with the footpod.  When calibrated I find it to be pretty accurate even when my pace and/or the terrain is varied. 

That said, there is the inconvenience of needing to calibrate the footpod.  Not only do you have to calibrate it when you get it but also anytime you get new shoes as well as every so often just to make sure.

As for instant pace, I don't use it for that much so I'm not exactly sure.  I think the avg. paces are spot on.


2010-02-04 1:29 PM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Extreme Veteran
845
50010010010025
Subject: RE: Running watches?
I use Nike+.  I know there are better options out there (more features, don't require calibration), but it does what I need. I run the same routes over and over, so if I change my pace and it affects the calibration, I know it and calibrate at the end of my run.  (Doesn't happen often, but over time s I went from 10 minute miles to 8 minutes).  A running partner has a Garmin 305 and we're usually pretty close on pace and distance.
2010-02-04 3:35 PM
in reply to: #2655282

User image

Expert
834
50010010010025
Medina, MN
Subject: RE: Running watches?
I have a Polar HRM with the footpod. I thought it worked OK for a while, but then was giving me bad data, probably needed to be calibrated. It also needs new batteries. I didn't really like the footpod thing overall and am going the GPS route, but if you'd like to make a deal on the old footpod unit, send me a PM .

-Matt
2010-02-04 3:54 PM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Expert
683
500100252525
Subject: RE: Running watches?
I used to use Nike+, but then found that it's VERY inaccurate for long distances. The longer the distance, the less accurate it was, no matter how much I recalibrated it.

I now use Garmin-- GPS when outside, foot pod when inside on the treadmill so I have some sense of how far/fast I'm going that doesn't depend on the variability of a gym's different treadmills.
2010-02-04 4:07 PM
in reply to: #2655213


1072
10002525
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Scout7 - 2010-02-04 1:13 PM

jsnowash - 2010-02-04 12:12 PM Man.... you guys aren't helping me, here! The cheap-skate in me is trying hard to convince myself that I can make due with one of the cheaper options! I'm pretty sure I could find a forerunner 50 w/foot pod for < $100, or maybe even go for one of these....

You wanna be cheap, buy yourself a simple Timex watch.  Problem solved.  You can train very effectively without a foot pod or GPS.



1X If you want cheap just use a Timex IM with a 30 lap memory ($30). I go to the local high school track when I do intervals. It is real easy to figure your pace. For running on the road, I use my bike computer and some spray paint. I mark off a 5 mile loop from my house in 0.5 increments. It real easy to figure. Just check your watch and do the math in you head.
2010-02-04 5:01 PM
in reply to: #2653976

Veteran
662
5001002525
Madison, Alabama
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Here's my two cents (for what it's worth).

I have a Nike+ iPod kit. I have a Polar s625x with a footpod. I have a Forerunner 305. That's the progression I bought them in. I like/liked my nike + kit, but it became more of a "I did more miles than you...see my nike website shows it" tool than anything else. I bought the s625x because I thought I had to have it. I absolutely adore my 305.

I like the GPS function much better than either of the footpods. the problem I always had with the footpod is that it uses an accelerometer to measure the distance. this can get off if not calibrated correctly. And, as discussed earlier (at least with my experience), the calibration usually gave me about 5% error...much less on my 305. If you want to buy my Polar with the footpod, PM me and I'll let you have it at a good price...

Kevin


2010-02-04 5:14 PM
in reply to: #2653976

Master
2460
20001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Just get the Garmin 305 if you want a HRM or 205 if you don't. It's proven for pacing, mapping for running by thousands on thousands of runners. Plus, you can get a bike mount and even cadence sensor if you suddenly decide you want it on your bike.

It's well worth it. I lost one recently, and didn't even upgrade to newer models. 
2010-02-04 5:32 PM
in reply to: #2653976

User image

Subject: RE: Running watches?

I think your problem will be best solved if you determine first how accurate you need your pace to be.  Obviously, the cheaper you go, the more limitations you have, or the less accurate it will be.  There is no magic $50 product that will display your current pace accurately on your watch...not yet anyway.

For me, pace is not that important.  I always run the same routes, so I use websites like mapmyrun to get the mile markers.  I've gotten to the point where I know which tree, which light post, or which house is the mile marker and I simply hit the split button on my timex.  I have always considered a GPS watch, but come to think of it, I don't want to be looking at my pace every 15 seconds to make sure that I'm steady...checking once every mile is good enough for me...I actually like to think about other things other than pace when I run.

If you are still concerned about accurate pace, and not getting a GPS watch, then stick to the track...or even the treadmill.  If you're not willing to spend the money, then you gotta sacrifice something to get what you want.

2010-02-05 8:23 AM
in reply to: #2653976

Member
195
100252525
Akron, OH
Subject: RE: Running watches?
Seriously, just get a Garmin 205 or 305.  Other than shoes, what equip do you need for running.  I use mine on every run.  Do you have to have one, of course not.  I love the feedback however.  Running without the Garmin is OK, but it's like biking without the bike computer or swimming without using a watch or pace clock.  I desire to know an objective measure of what's going on with each work out.  If you're going to run 500 miles this year or whatever, it's really pretty cheap.  If you want to save money, the bike is the place to do it.  You can save 50 bucks and have far inferior technology that affects every run.  If you have the money, just get it, you won't be sorry.  
2010-02-05 8:57 AM
in reply to: #2656588

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Running watches?

dscottmd - 2010-02-05 9:23 AM S  Other than shoes, what equip do you need for running.

Pants/shorts, maybe a shirt depending on weather and personal preference.  Personally, I don't consider a watch a requirement.  Just clothing.

2010-02-05 11:41 AM
in reply to: #2656588

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: Running watches?
dscottmd - 2010-02-05 9:23 AM

Seriously, just get a Garmin 205 or 305.  Other than shoes, what equip do you need for running.  


According to several recent threads, the shoes aren't really even necessary!

Seriously though... I'm still pondering the GPS vs Foot pod question - I like the idea of a GPS. I wish the 305 wasn't so d@amn BIG!


2010-02-05 12:45 PM
in reply to: #2657151

User image

Veteran
300
100100100
Colfax, NC
Subject: RE: Running watches?

FWIW My wrists are not that big, a little more than 6" around, and I don't even notice the size.  I started off with the older 201 and had it for almost 5 years before getting the 305.  The shape of the two is different but the 201 took up even more of my arm.  I guess some people can never get used to wearing it but I have other things keeping my mind occupied while running.  Like whether or not my knee is going to come apart or something along those lines. Yell

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Running watches? Rss Feed